Sorry in Kinship

This is a slightly reworked short essay I wrote for an American based yahoogroup which focuses on the theology of evolution. I have been writing recently about why it is that Australian Aboriginal culture sustains an overt teaching for the external self expression, about the human types and archetypes, in which we can learn to know ourself by following the right story.

Most cultures, and indeed most mainstream religious contexts, keep the knowledge of which archetype is each individual’s real story, a secret. It is a secret which each individual needs to find for themself so as to validate it. I am using the word “archetype” here since anthropologists have used that term to delineate the set of essential story lines which are true to every culture.

What does not happen in Aboriginal culture, is for any person to be told exactly which story is their own real perfect archetype. Yet each person is given a name at birth which correlates their whole living situation into the set of sisters or brothers whom also all have the same name, and whom ideally, if every marriage has been made perfectly according to kinship rules and laws, will be the all the same archetype. Most persons belonging within Abrahamic traditions also follow a similar pattern in naming, by which heritage my father gave me the name Rebecca at birth, which is the same in meaning as my Warlbiri name nungarrayi. These names are very close fits to my actual story from my birth place, however the exact story is told in its feminine version, between the chapters of the Torah about Joseph. I know its story best from the male version about Koopoo the Kangaroo, who turns into a Rainbow Serpent, alike to Joseph’s shirt. Rebecca or Rivaq or Rabia are all names which carry the same type of story, but from differing locations in origin.

Sometimes it happens that a person just naturally notices very young what their own story is. In other instances people live their whole life according only to that story which is being socially provided them, if they are not born adjusted into the right archetype because of their parent’s marriage variety. Aboriginal culture(s) is(are) much more restrictive than most cultures in respect of what forms of marriage are enabled. Either it is perfect, or to a person whose archetype belongs to a grandparent's generation. There is no intermarriage of persons of the same archetype ever allowed, and any instances of such are ostracised from culture altogether. I only know of one example of that sort of marriage existing, and it was usually through rare examples of very promiscuous females, and much opposed by other portions of the tribes local to the example in mind, which had been between the Brisbane and Clarence rivers. In fact, in the region in which evidence has arisen that a Jihad was current then in 1788. I know also that within Aboriginal mythology, the story line upon which the life of Kunti, from Mahabarata, is told and enjoyed, had always been one upon which no such marriages of incest could take place. The river flows deep in her story, and among us Australians just as deep as it had for Kunti, but without ever demeaning the human behaviour, and thus all the more enjoyably.

In remote hunter gatherer cultures, the ostracism of persons of the same archetype whom engage in intimate relations, basically amounts to the individuals concerned being abandoned to die in one another's company, without any other persons to blame for their own behaviour. Other rules in place governing relations between men and women of the same skeletal archetype, include a need which is instructed to all children, that in one another’s company there is to be no sexual references whatsoever, and if that happens, it must be held as the female’s responsibility.

In some tribes, but not all, marriage between a son-in-law and mother-in-law, or between the archetypes in which that relationship ideally occurs, is also forbidden and carries a death penalty. Sort of like a mercy killing, but that is among the communities who rely on the desert environment, while where there is more water, that form of social relationship is recognised, but always recognised as rape. A mother-in-law and son-in-law may live even closely bound, but must never engage in any direct recognition of one another. Where there is recognition, it is said to be the cause of why platypus manifest in nature.

The severity of social sanctions for marital relations and all intimate relations, is the necessary accompaniment to enabling that even children are able to form open mental associations with the stories of ancestors (like cult and/or lodge stories as Native American cultures defines such) in which their own life is taking shape.

There is one other aspect of our indigenous culture which enables this. It is that all our lodges, or patrilineal clans, as well as the matrilineal kinship name given at birth which is more akin to a cult identification, have animal totems, and in the ancestral and religious traditions, it is believed that even the most honourable figures and holiest men, manifested a transformation into an animal form. The basic belief is that if even one person in any community, enacts even one criminal behaviour, then that act effects the possibilities of the future for every other person in that community, and so every person accepts some small portion of the culpability, equitable with the extent to which they could not help but notice the consequences of crime.
What eventually socially manifests is a conscious conviction of belief that every one among us is wrong to be letting any criminal get away with crime. There is no viable method of sustaining a healthy culture without causing it to be isolated fully from every other culture, which is perhaps why Australia is as it is, in that our culture was socially isolated from the rest of the planet for many thousands of years, even giving rise to a whole array of new species. The arising of marsupials and eucalypts is believed to have been caused by the fact of the best and most innocent Souls coming to rest within the form of flora and fauna. In fact, our native flora and fauna is unique in its capacity to live in extremely arid regions, and particularly with a high level of salt in the subterranean water table. Also the eucalyptus family is very neatly discriminatory as to which plant typically corresponds to which archetype of human association.

Earlier this week the new Labor party prime minister made an apology for the past government policies existing between 1901 and 1967, in which all children known to be of the Aboriginal race were made wards of the state.

It is about time. Many of those whom were removed from their mothers are among the best and brightest of the Australian intelligentsia, and many other of the most intelligent among Australians are of mixed racial blood and have grown up in families who feigned having no Aboriginal ancestry in order to protect our children. Notably also the British sent here the best adept of their convicts, yet thus it is that our indigenous culture has predominantly been able to relate to the invading culture through the criminal world, since I can not say the same for the figures of authority whom were also sent to Australia. Perhaps it is fortuitous for the British that they invaded a country in which our Animist belief is so very inculcated into the pattern of detecting and exposing criminality.

In these days around the Prime Minister providing an active statement, or declaration, of apology, in saying sorry, it seems appropriate to be attending also to the fact that the Australian constitution still awards the land the status of having been Terra Nullius in 1788. That legally defines Australian territory as having had no human inhabitants prior to 1788. In 1988 prior ownership of Australian territory was however acknowledged. Does this mean that Aboriginal Australians today are still not being awarded basic human rights? The answer in general is yes, and that also that status is embodied in the nuances of various aspects of contemporary and recently formed legislation.

I can personally attest to this fact, since I have never experienced in all my life the level of dehumanisation as has happened to me since I first identified myself publicly with the Aboriginal Ancestors of many white Australians like me.

What the statement of sorry is all about, needs to be regarded as an apology for having branded our Animist faith as tantamount to being unable to provide safety within which children can grown up into a human outlook upon their adulthood.

Our culture is such that we can not really fault anybody for blaming us for having our animal identifications, we can merely assert that not every animist type identification is caused by criminal behaviour, and so it is overtly wrong to perpetrate the psychological abuse of projecting upon us any imaginative concepts of what sort of behaviour has caused us to identify with the fauna and flora, or even the geology. That we are an honest and hardworking culture, race, and ethnicity, by nature, is proven in the strength of many aspects of today's modern Australian culture, and the worth of our scientists and our environmentalists, our school teachers and nurses, and our family and social stability patterns generally.

The contemporary situation in respect of the intervention into remote Indigenous-and-Aboriginal communities sadly had the potential to aggravate delusions about why it is that our culture(s) sustains patterns of self identification with the natural environment. We who are Aboriginal Australians, must respect the National apology for the theft of children to be also an apology in respect of cultural alienation, and therefore also be what needed to happen to redress the problem of wrong notions about why our identifications with the natural world exist. For persons whom are not Aboriginal, the best way to regard our belief, is to associate all our non-human identifications, with the processes by which diseased mental patterns are exorcised out of the human mind, and into the natural world. Our culture is resplendent with long held belief, taught in that portion of our older mythology which is compatible with Islam, that a person can turn into a tree and birds and then from that form then become turned into a star. That language is euphemism for entering Jannah, after having first accepted the process of full exorcism of the Soul.

Today I want to say thankyou to every person anywhere whom has joined with any of the prayers around the world which are enabling of this statement of sorry from the Prime Minister of Australia. That thankyou extends also to enabling all individuals whose lives have been immediately detrimentally effected by Australian Government policies in respect of the removal of Aboriginal children from family safety and integrity, to be included among those whom experience the benefit of the apology. Most indigenous Australians are far too put upon to have been able to realise how much prayer and effort from other communities has contributed to obtaining the apology from the Labor government. Thanks in particular to all those believers in One God whom never lost sight of the fact that our culture sustains possibilities of belief in One God, even when the god-head type cults are being brandished more assertively. Initiated men know the difference, and our initiation traditions, where held in full strength and truth, defy anybody to assert that One God might not be the cause of all and every manifestation of reality. Yet in this modern world, the way of our men had been silenced. It is my sincere prayer for sustaining all life in Allah that our men will become enabled once again to fulfil with dignity the real destiny of our culture, Inshallah with grace.

Within that thanks, I want to add for the American context, a specially felt thanks to all those whom have taken up the ropes of finding the way through science to begin to have amassed the scientific data within which using Kinship regulation by name, as a basis for culture, will one day be proven. Particularly in the fields of immuno-genetics and cognative neuorolgy, and in the hope and faith that one day those efforts will be combined, and be able to provide scientific backing for what is essentially a strong surviving cultural embodiment of forgiveness, in which Jesus example is never lost.

Thanks also to every person whose suffering, at times on the behalf of indigenous Australians, was consciously lead by prayer for a positive future for all humanity.

At this time I am working towards using the space opening among policy makers, through the election victory to the ALP, to highlight the modern issues in which cultural alienation continues despite the policies of government having improved.

First I must pay due note to the fact that the message stick which was handed to Kevin Rudd by the granddaughters of Matilda House-Williams, is a real sign, and now cohabits the corridors of power along with the rod by which the politicians are sworn in, and the sceptre which enables the speaker of the house of parliament. Those implements bear direct reference to various religious symbolism, but are also real absolute objective signs in Allah. A stick signifies two, as a measure. So now, alongside a blackened two, and a golden two, there is a wooden two through which Indigenous Australians are welcoming the politicians to engage in their political processes on our land. The weight of the responsibility for that fact, need be recognised and accepted by many many more persons than only the House and Williams families. Clearly two young girls did not do the deed by which our political and parliamentary processes are being guided into the domain of Aboriginal ownership and responsibility. Already the majority of Aborigines are experiencing a qualitative difference in self respect and social regard as a direct effect of the whole set of ceremonies which have taken place. Those ceremonies include Corroborees made in 1988, including for the opening of Parliament House, and engaging meaning through all the Aboriginal Art which is a part of the building. The hill which was removed to built the house had been a sacred site which sits on the Dreamline (songline or leyline) that Uluru also is at. Therefore the significance of any action through the houses of federal parliament here in Australia, will always now be effecting the whole Aboriginal community, as our prayers will be actively contributing to parliamentary processes.

Can I welcome believers in One God and the Prophets, from any faith, to participate with us in these events, only as you are yourselves guided to through your own prayers.

My own immediate contributions are in respect of the evidence to my witness that ritualised abuse, of the sort known about by therapists in America, to have been causal to multiple-personality-disorders, is being conducted systematically to every inmate of many Australian prisons. Clearly this is an issue for the whole Australian community, which I am sure that Dr Muhamad Haneef and those Muslims arrested under the anti-terrorist legislation, will all be able to testify to in time. The Aboriginal community is inclusive of many men whom have borne the brunt of that abuse to how the mind comprehends the world. Subhanallah a way will open to prevent the abuse to our culture and thereby also opening the cultural perception of how we will find ourselves again in reality. I can not personally, and socially, emphasis enough how tremendously important Kinship regulation is to our culture. So important that the assault upon our communities has been experienced as an active attempt to degrade our culture by preventing our Kinship. But this week the victory of “true law” is manifest.

Alaykumuassalamu waramathullahi wabarakathuhu